D H Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 The formulas below are corrected as follows:Lambda sub photon = Square root of h / m sub e Mike, Stop that. Planck's constant has units of length2*mass/time. In the metric system, the value of Planck's constant is [math]h=6.626068\cdot10^{-34} \, \text{meters}^2\text{kilogram}/\text{second}[/math] Dividing something with units of length2*mass/time by something with units of mass yields something with units of length2/time. Your result is not the square of any length because it does not have units of length2. Now, suppose you do come up with something that was dimensionally correct. The result will still be numerology because you have supplied no justification for why the particular numbers you have chosen are related. Since photons have a frequency of ONE, And stop this, also. This statement is absolutely meaningless (ONE what? What are the units?) and absolutely wrong (different photons have different frequencies). Gamma rays and radio waves, along with different colors of light, are different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 interesting that the peak for CMBR lambda is 1.9mm
doG Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Mike, Stop that.Planck's constant has units of length2*mass/time. In the metric system, the value of Planck's constant is [math]h=6.626068\cdot10^{-34} \, \text{meters}^2\text{kilogram}/\text{second}[/math] Dividing something with units of length2*mass/time by something with units of mass yields something with units of length2/time. Your result is not the square of any length because it does not have units of length2. Planck's constant can also be expressed in joule·seconds but you still end up with the same problem, joule·seconds over mass still is not a length. This thread really doesn't even fit under pseudoscience, it's more like anti-science.
Klaynos Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 1J = 1kg m^2 / s^2 Which has the dimensions of mass length length / time time
doG Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 1J = 1kg m^2 / s^2 Which has the dimensions of mass length length / time time http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlancksConstant.html
Klaynos Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlancksConstant.html Yeah but my point was a Joule can be expressed in terms of other units which have distinct dimensions...
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 klaynos is right, the joule is a derived unit, it is better expressed in terms of the base units
doG Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Yeah but my point was a Joule can be expressed in terms of other units which have distinct dimensions... I realize that. I was simply pointing out that another way of expressing it is as a product of energy and time and dividing that product by mass does not yield a length. It was not my intent to argue over which is the best expression or not. It's just another way of illustrating how absurd Mike's claim is.
Klaynos Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I realize that. I was simply pointing out that another way of expressing it is as a product of energy and time and dividing that product by mass does not yield a length. It was not my intent to argue over which is the best expression or not. It's just another way of illustrating how absurd Mike's claim is. Cool, I didn't think you'd missed my point but just got to check difficult to tell sometimes
Reaper Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 This thread really doesn't even fit under pseudoscience, it's more like anti-science. Alright time for some real science: my theory, based on past observations and the known laws of SFN, is that this thread will be thrown in the trash can in the not too distant future . On the side note, I've always wondered how fast Mike C would be shredded by SFN if he made an attempt to post his "theories" here .
New Science Posted June 16, 2008 Author Posted June 16, 2008 You left out the units again. Include the units and you should see your error... What units? Plancks constant (PC) is given in Joule-seconds Weins constant converts to wavelength from temperature. Just two units. Rayleighs formula at the low end of radiation uses only 2 units . Frequency and temperature PC represents a tiny bit of energy. So I substitute PC for E sub pc. As far as I know, this is the smallest known energy source. A photon is a single quanta of energy with a frequency of one. There are many sources of energy so I wanted to find the soiurce of the PC quanta. Both deBrogliev and Einstein used matter as a component. So I decided to use the electron as the matter reprentative because it is used by deBroglie. The electrons also generate the photons. So with 2 known values, it was easy to solve for the 3rd (photon quanta). Sothe reult is shown above. NS
Phi for All Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 On the side note, I've always wondered how fast Mike C would be shredded by SFN if he made an attempt to post his "theories" here .Anyone who is serious about science should actually welcome a good shredding; what worries me is when New Science, after two pages of refutation, begins to repost his own OP as an argument. He is showing symptoms of pronounced auditory meatus blockage due to cranio-rectal insertion. 2
doG Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 What units?Plancks constant (PC) is given in Joule-seconds And you're claiming that joule·seconds divided by mass is a length?
New Science Posted June 16, 2008 Author Posted June 16, 2008 (edited) And stop this' date=' also. This statement is absolutely meaningless (ONE what? What are the units?) and absolutely wrong (different photons have different frequencies). Gamma rays and radio waves, along with different colors of light, are different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation[/quote'] So one wavelength has a dimension. Red light has a dimension of 6.56^-7 meters. So a photon of red light has a distance of 6.56^-7 meters. So yes, there are different EM pulses. But all photons have a frequency of 'one'. So their dimensions are different. Lower frequency photons have longer wavelengths. So the wavelength of 2.697^-2 meters is a longer wavelength than a red photon. So its energy is much lower. Anyway, I will stop this argument to maintain peace in this thread. So I am outta here. NS Edited June 16, 2008 by Phi for All fixed quote tags
ydoaPs Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 But all photons have a frequency of 'one'. So their dimensions are different.Lower frequency photons have longer wavelengths. Umm, isn't that slightly self-contradictory?
Reaper Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 (edited) Anyway, I will stop this argument to maintain peace in this thread. So I am outta here. Awww man! Did we just scare him off already? No, Mike, you don't get to just "run away". One of the things you are going to have to learn, before your ideas get accepted (or not), is to finish what you started . Now, you are going to stay here, stand your ground and try to convince us of this "major discovery". Anyone who is serious about science should actually welcome a good shredding; what worries me is when New Science, after two pages of refutation, begins to repost his own OP as an argument. He is showing symptoms of pronounced auditory meatus blockage due to cranio-rectal insertion. I'll admit, this quote made me laugh out loud:D. That certainly deserves some points... It's kinda both funny and sad though, that NS thinks he's an expert and then failing miserably at it. Edited June 16, 2008 by Reaper multiple post merged
Klaynos Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 I think to save futher debate on the same thing New Science please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis To understand what we mean when we say your equation does not satisfy dimensional analysis! I missed the bit where he said he was leaving... GPM said that a couple of time and came back so you never know...
Reaper Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Since New Science doesn't seem to want to post on this thread (he better, if he wants to continue to stay on this site...). I will give one more final word of warning about Mike C, namely this quote made quite some time ago in my skirmish against him: Its customary to divide the photon length into 'c' to get the frequency of that photon even though it is a pulse only. I believe in the Planck Bohr model of creating a photon. I simply ignore the SR or GR to get solutions for photons. Mike C and Reaper I do not use thought experiments. I rely on real science like Copernicus's' date=' Kepler's, Newton's, Planck's and Bohr's. Like I said, those Teeny Weeny corrections can be mind/spiritual corrections. I have witnessed actual physical influences of casino slot machines. For your information, there is a Universal Mind. Also, there is a perpetual motion machine and that is the Steady State Universe. Ever hear of the Conservation of Matter and etc? Did you read my post on the 'Theory of Everything'? Mike C [/quote'] Not only is he, oh, just ignoring all of the valid points I brought up so long ago, this guy will not actually bring up physical evidence or mathematics of his own to back any of his claims up. In fact, when I did address this particular post, he completely brushed it off with a one sentence post. So, there you go. On the bright side, he seems much more reluctant to actually post his crap over here on SFN because of our strong arguments. So, its not all bad. But, to Mike C, I'm beginning to notice you deciding which posts you want to address and which ones you don't. And, you still aren't addressing any of the concerns and points that were raised. So, either you address our topics now, and actually come back to this thread and continue to duke it out in a proper way, or you will not last very long on this site. In addition, I will soon bring the rest of your threads and debates over here so that you can duke it out with real scientists and physics students..... Mike C, prepare yourself for the ultimate beating and shredding.
New Science Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 Second time he's said he's leaving, btw. OK, I'm back. What bothers me is that when I say a photon has a dimension, this was refuted as not true. It is widely known that wavelengths are a characteristic of the nature of light. These wavelengths have dimensions . Therefore, my conclusion is that photons have dimensions. That is the way you can only differentiate one photon from another. Photons have a frequency of just 'one' since they are just a Quanta of energy. This distinguishes them from the 'standing' waves when the HA is not radiating any visible light although there are photons out of the visible range also. Standing waves do not transmit any intelligence unless they are modulated by the magnetic component. My formuls has given Plancks quantum energy an actual wave pulse that has a dimension. It is .02697 meters long. This is 26.97 millimeters long that is equal to aboiut 1+ inches (US) long. OK, I will listen to any honest critics that are serious. NS
Reaper Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 OK, I'm back. What bothers me is that when I say a photon has a dimension, this was refuted as not true. It is widely known that wavelengths are a characteristic of the nature of light. These wavelengths have dimensions . Therefore, my conclusion is that photons have dimensions. That is the way you can only differentiate one photon from another. Photons have a frequency of just 'one' since they are just a Quanta of energy. This distinguishes them from the 'standing' waves when the HA is not radiating any visible light although there are photons out of the visible range also. Standing waves do not transmit any intelligence unless they are modulated by the magnetic component. You've made these claims over and over again, and they were debunked over and over again. Do you mind actually backing this up with more then just your opinion or speculation? (i.e. Use math, physical evidence, experiments, etc.) My formuls has given Plancks quantum energy an actual wave pulse that has a dimension. It is .02697 meters long. This is 26.97 millimeters long that is equal to aboiut 1+ inches (US) long. Why? How? What formulas did you use/derive. What is the physical basis for them. We want to see them, not just hear about it. And, preferably show us algebra or calculus formulas (e.g. functions)....
Klaynos Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 velocity = wavelength * frequency That's true for any wave.... So how can the wavelength vary and the frequency be 1? And just because something has a wavelength does NOT mean that that's it's physical size, electrons have a wavelength, yet all measurements on them show them to be pointlike... and they're far more likely to have physical dimensions than photons....
New Science Posted June 21, 2008 Author Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) Umm, isn't that slightly self-contradictory? How is that contradictory? I solved for the wavelength as a single source. You might give a frequency by dividing the WL into 'c' but this is really not necessary because the photons are 'not' continuous waves. NS You've made these claims over and over again, and they were debunked over and over again. Do you mind actually backing this up with more then just your opinion or speculation? (i.e. Use math, physical evidence, experiments, etc.) Why? How? What formulas did you use/derive. What is the physical basis for them. We want to see them, not just hear about it. And, preferably show us algebra or calculus formulas (e.g. functions).... My formula is similat to Einsteins formula that everyone accepts. EF components use generic terms like mass (NO exact quantity), Energy (NEQ) and c (NEQ). Frequencies have different energies. I substitute 'exact' quantities for my components. h for E, electron mass for mass and Photon for c or light. E = m sub e x photon wavelenth^2. Can you understand that simple explanation? NS velocity = wavelength * frequency That's true for any wave.... So how can the wavelength vary and the frequency be 1? And just because something has a wavelength does NOT mean that that's it's physical size, electrons have a wavelength, yet all measurements on them show them to be pointlike... and they're far more likely to have physical dimensions than photons.... Photons have different wavelengths. All photons are not the same since they are created from different orbital levels. Their different wavelengths would cause different frequencies but as I said, this is irrelavent because photons are not continuous waves but just quanta pulses. NS And you're claiming that joule·seconds divided by mass is a length? Square root of, yes. Light is reduced to just ONE single component that is a photon. NS Edited June 21, 2008 by New Science multiple post merged
Reaper Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 How is that contradictory? I solved for the wavelength as a single source. :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: You might give a frequency by dividing the WL into 'c' but this is really not necessary because the photons are 'not' continuous waves. Photons are both a particle and a wave. And, you do not get frequency by dividing wavelength into the speed of light; it's the other way around: f=c/(lambda). My formula is similat to Einsteins formula that everyone accepts. EF components use generic terms like mass (NO exact quantity), Energy (NEQ) and c (NEQ). Frequencies have different energies. Really? What physical reason is there for modifying Einstein's formula? I substitute 'exact' quantities for my components. :confused: h for E, electron mass for mass and Photon for c or light. E = m sub e x photon wavelenth^2. Can you understand that simple explanation? NS Yes I do understand what you are saying. It is completely wrong, the units are completely wrong, and if you did dimensional analysis you would see that. Why don't you try doing that the next time? h has units of J*s, while E is just J, for example. Of course, Planks constant can be described in other units too, none of which are equivalent to Joules. Photons have different wavelengths. All photons are not the same since they are created from different orbital levels. Their different wavelengths would cause different frequencies but as I said, this is irrelavent because photons are not continuous waves but just quanta pulses. NS You just contradicted yourself. And, again, a photon is both a particle and a wave, all particles have a de Broglie wavelength. Square root of, yes. Light is reduced to just ONE single component that is a photon. NS What? . Will you stop trying to make things up and ducking the questions?
Recommended Posts